Overview of Developing Countries

CHAPTER TWO

Overview of Developing Countries Suani Teixeira Coelho*, Marina Yesica Recalde†, Shyamala K. Mani‡, William H.L. Stafford§,¶ *Research Group on Bioenergy, Institute of Energy and Environment, University of Sa˜o Paulo, Sa˜o Paulo, Brazil † Fundacio´n Bariloche, Buenos Aires, Argentina ‡ National Institute of Urban Affairs (NIUA), India Habitat Centre, New Delhi, India § Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Stellenbosch, South Africa ¶ Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, South Africa

2.1 LATIN AMERICA: ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND SOCIAL OVERVIEW Marina Yesica Recalde Fundacio´n Bariloche, Buenos Aires, Argentina

The Human Development Index (HDI) can be used as an indicator to measure the socioeconomic development, particularly, considering the links between waste, energy, and other aspects. As defined by UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme), the HDI is a composite index measuring average achievement in three basic dimensions of human development: a long and healthy life, knowledge, and a decent standard of living. Also in other socioeconomic indicators, the HDI of LAC (Latin American Countries) is quite good in comparison to other developing regions of the world, occupying in 2015 the second place for the developing regions (0.751), after the East Asia and the Pacific (0.720) and far away from sub-Saharan Africa (0.523). As this index is clearly country specific and the situation inside the LAC is very dissimilar it is good to have an idea on the situation of the countries under analysis in this book regarding the rank. In this sense, in 2015 Argentina ranked 45 (0.827), Mexico 77 (0.762), Brazil 79 (0.754), Ecuador 89 (0.739), and Colombia 95 (0.727). The gross national income (GNI) per capita (2011 PPP USD) in 2015 for the LAC was on average 14,028, while for the rest of the developing regions the GNI per capita was between 14,958 (Arab States) and 3383 (Sub-Saharan Africa). However, this value is far away from the most developed regions: in the group of very high human development countries, the GNI per capita was 39,605. Most of the countries selected for the case studies display an income inequality distribution as shown by the Gini Index, which is above 40 for all of them (above 50 in the case of Brazil and Colombia). Conversely, in most of OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries this Municipal Solid Waste Energy Conversion in Developing Countries https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-813419-1.00002-4

© 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

9

Suani Teixeira Coelho et al.

10

index is around 31, differing significantly among countries, for instance, Germany (31.7), Austria (30.5), Belgium (27.7), Denmark (28.2), Czech Republic (25.69), France (32.7), Hungary (30.4), Spain (36.2), Italy (34.7), and United States (41.5), among others. Except for Colombia and Ecuador, the countries under analysis have high urbanization rates and good electrification rates (at least in urban areas), which, according to the World Bank Sustainable Energy for All (SE4ALL) database, is nearly 99/100% in all the cases for total electricity access.1 Concerning electricity consumption, electricity per capita in the LAC region is also superior to other underdeveloped or developing regions of the world (2.1 MWh/capita in 2015), but significantly lower than OECD countries (8.02 MWh/capita in 2015) (Table 2.1). In the last few years, the debate on GHG emissions in the energy sector and its environmental impact has become more relevant for the developing regions. This situation is expected to deepen in the following years as emissions have grown more significantly in nondeveloped world in relative terms, directly related to GHG emissions in the energy sector and its key drivers: demographic trends, economic activity and income, and technological and structural changes (Recalde et al., 2014). Indeed, energy-related emission grew significantly in developing non-OECD countries in the period 2001–12 (nearly 80%) and remained nearly stable in the OECD region (DOI/IEA, 2013). Additionally, different policy scenarios stress that developing countries will be the most energy consuming and emitting countries, because their economies and population will grow at a higher rate than developed ones, and will probably “rely on fossil fuels to meet this fast-paced growth in energy demand” (DOI/IEA, 2013; IPCC, 2013). This will increase the relevance in the developing countries for the implementation of mitigation policies. Table 2.1 Country Socio-Economic and Energy Specific Characteristics

Country

HDI Ranka

GNI pc2015 (2011 PPP USD) GINI Indexb

Urban Population (% of Total)c

Elec. Cons. CO2/Pop pc (MWh/ (tCO2/ capita)d capita)d

CO2/GDP (PPP) (kgCO2/2010 USD)d

(TPES)/GDP PPP (toe/mil 2010 USD)d

Argentina Brazil Colombia Ecuador Mexico

45 79 95 89 77

20,945 14,145 12,762 10,536 16,383

92 86 77 64 80

3.09 2.52 1.23 1.43 2.23

4.41 0.15 0.12 0.22 0.22

0.12 0.1 0.06 0.09 0.09

42.4 (2016) 51.3 (2015) 50.8 (2016) 45 (2016) 43.4 (2016)

a

4.41 2.17 1.5 2.33 3.66

Base 2015. Source: UNDP-HDI (2016). Base 2016, except for Brazil: 2015. Values between 0 and 100. Source: World DataBank: http://databank.worldbank.org. Source: World Bank database, based on United Nations Population Division. World Urbanization Prospects: 2014 Revision. d Base 2015, Source: IEA Key World Energy Statistics 2015: www.iea.org. Source: Adapted from Recalde, M.Y., 2016. The different paths for renewable energies in Latin American Countries: the relevance of the enabling frameworks and the design of instruments. WIREs Energy Environ. 5(3), 305–326. b c

1

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.ELC.ACCS.ZS.

Overview of Developing Countries

Environmental impact, especially in terms of climate change impact, can be measured differently. This may have a different impact in terms of the climate change regional responsibilities debate: total CO2 emissions (1132.47 MtCO2 in LAC and 11,720.23 MtCO2 in OECD), CO2 emissions by GDP (0.18 and 0.25 kgCO2/2010 USD in LAC and OECD respectively), or as CO2 emissions per capita (2.33 and 9.18 tCO2/ population in LAC and OECD, respectively). It is straightforward that the environmental impact of the region (measured by these indicators) is very low compared to the majority of the regions of the world (OECD, Middle East, Non-OECD Europe and Eurasia, and China). However, this may not the case in some specific countries of the regions (e.g., Argentina and Mexico), which can be, to some extent, related to their electricity generation mix. The LAC presents one of the cleanest electricity mix of the world, with more than 50% corresponding to big hydro and nearly 42% to thermal and nuclear power generation (the remaining share corresponds to nonconventional renewable energy sources (NRES)). The situation within the region is diverse; it can be divided into countries where big hydropower generation is predominant (Paraguay, Guatemala, Colombia, Costa Rica, Brazil, Suriname, Venezuela, Belize, Uruguay, Peru, and Ecuador) and countries with higher share of thermal power generation (Panama´, Bolivia, Argentina, Chile, Haiti, Mexico, Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Cuba, Guyana, Barbados, and Grenada) (Recalde, 2016). However, in the past decades many of these countries have been facing different energy challenges: increasing energy security, reducing external dependence and economic impact of the energy balance, and improving environmental quality of the energy sector, among others. This led them to enhance their efforts to implement the energy policies to promote the diversification of their electricity sectors. Therefore, they have begun the path to the promotion of renewable energies in electricity sectors, and the use of waste-to-energy (WtE) technologies. Therefore, as it will be discussed in this chapter and Chapter 4, the LAC region, and the countries selected as a case of study have begun to promote deeply the use of other energy sources in their energy systems, both as a way to increase energy access and reduce energy environmental impact. Finally, and directly related to the climate change debate and impact, all the 33 Latin American nations belong to the UNFCCC, all of them (except for Nicaragua) also belong to the Paris Accord and 31 countries have already presented their NDCs (nationally determined contributions). All the NDCs presented by the countries have conditional and unconditional targets, and many of them include the energy sector (and some mention the waste sector) among the most relevant sectors for mitigation policies (UNEP, 2016). Section 2.1 presents a brief characterization of the economic, social, and environmental situation of each one of the five LACs analyzed in the book.

11

Suani Teixeira Coelho et al.

12

2.1.1 Economic Overview 2.1.1.1 Argentina—Economic Overview Alejandro Cittadino* and Atilio Armando Savino† * Departamento de Ecologı´a, Genetica y Evolucio´n—Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina † International Solid Waste Association (ISWA), Buenos Aires, Argentina

The Argentine Republic, located in the southernmost part of the American Continent, has a surface of 3,761,274 km2, of which 2,780,400 km2 are continental and the rest corresponds to the Antarctic area and the South Atlantic islands. The administrative division of the Argentine Republic includes 23 provinces and the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires (CABA). Argentina is one of the largest economies in the Latin American region, with a GDP (constant 2010 U$S) of 460,334 billion U$S in 2017. The country is characterized by a macroeconomic volatility, with periods of acceleration followed by recessions or deep crisis. In the last two decades the Argentinean GDP grew steadily after the 2001 economic crisis (258,282 billion 2010 US$) until 2008 (408,877 billion 2010 US$), mainly as the result of a combination of aspects related to the international crises and some internal factors. Then, between 2011 and 2017 the country had minor volatilities (Fig. 2.1). The country is very well dotted of natural resources, particularly for agricultural production and energy (nonrenewable and renewable), which has made it one of the largest food producers in the world with large-scale agricultural and livestock industries. Argentinean economic output is based largely on industrial production and an export-oriented agricultural sector, which account for 63% of total exports. However, as stated by PNUD (2017), since the mid-1970s Argentinean economy has been subjected to endogenous and exogenous impacts resulting in a deindustrialization process, labor precarity, and long-term economic growth below the potential. 500

Billion US$

450 400 350 300 250

20 00 20 01 20 02 20 03 20 04 20 05 20 06 20 07 20 08 20 09 20 10 20 11 20 12 20 13 20 14 20 15 20 16 20 17

200

Fig. 2.1 Gross domestic product (GDP) (constant 2010 US$) in Argentina (Source: World Bank database.)

Overview of Developing Countries

Wood + bagasse Coal 2.079% 1.309%

13 Biofuels Solar Wind 3.662% 0.002% 0.220%

Other primary Hydro 0.365% 4.060% Nuclear 2.778%

Oil 31.964%

Natural gas 53.562%

Fig. 2.2 Total primary energy sources in Argentina in 2016.

Despite its high renewable energy endowment and the existence of policies to promote the use of renewable energies (Recalde, 2016a,b), Argentina is still highly dependent on hydrocarbons. According to the National Energy Balance (BEN), published by the Ministry of Energy (MEN) in 2016, the total primary energy supply (TPES) was 80,060 tons of oil equivalent (toe), with natural gas and oil accounting for 86% of total TPES, as shown in Fig. 2.2. 2.1.1.2 Brazil—Economic Overview Luís Gustavo Tudeschini Research Group on Bioenergy, Institute of Energy and Environment, University of Sa˜o Paulo, Sa˜o Paulo, Brazil

The Brazilian population is projected to grow until 2042 and reach a total of 228 mi inhabitants (IBGE, 2013). If the current production and consumption behavior maintains, it would generate around 237,120 tons of municipal solid waste (MSW) per day and demand 282 mi toe of energy per year.2 The adoption of waste-to-energy (WtE) technologies gives a sustainable path to attend both the demand for a sustainable MSW management (MSWM) and power generation. The National Plan on Solid Waste3 (NPSW), approved in August 2010, is the country’s central regulatory framework on solid waste (SW) management, and its fundamental objectives promote healthier and environmentally friendly pathways to manage solid in the 5570 municipalities. Nevertheless, the MSWM in Brazil shows slight improvement and still needs to address essential challenges. Those challenges consist of providing waste collection, adequate processing and disposal, reusing and recycling and, most especially, explore the potential for energy generation. 2

3

Using reference values from 2016. Municipal solid waste generation: 1.04 kg/capita/day (ABRELPE, 2016), and final energy demand: 1.24 toe/capita/year (MME/EPE, 2017). Federal Law number 12.305, August 2, 2010 (Brasil, 2010).

Suani Teixeira Coelho et al.

14

From 2010 to 2016,4 the data on SW management shows that: the population share with access to waste collection decreased 7% (from 82% to 75%); and adequate disposal increased less than 1% (0.8%), leaving almost 40% (81 thousand tons) of the collected waste in 2016 without adequate disposal (ABRELPE, 2016; MCIDADES.SNSA, 2012; SNIS, 2016). These are average numbers often mask important regional particularities. Each of the five geographic regions has extreme differences concerning the physical environment and socioeconomic development. As an example, the GDP per capita in the Southeast region, the richest and most populous, is more than two times higher when compared with the Northeast region, US$11,109 and US$ 44125 per year respectively (IBGE, 2017). Consequently, the low investment capacity in more impoverished regions leads to the worst overall waste management indicators. As shown in Table 2.2, when compared with the national level, the North and Northeast regions have the lowest economic performance, which is translated into worse MSWM. Within regions, these discrepancies are even more considerable. For instance, in Acre (a northern state) 45% of the population has not access to waste collection, while in the state of Amapa (also a northern state) this number is 21% lower. The cost of the current system also varies geographically, especially at the municipal level. The national average MSWM cost is US$ 31.80 per capita, but half of the cities spend less than US$26.00 for these services. On the other hand, there are extreme cases as in the insular municipality of Fernando de Noronha, which the cost of MSWM is about US$802.00 per capita. Thus, the share of these costs in the budget presents significant variations being the national average 3.4%, but more than 100 municipalities spend over 10% of its funds on these services. Moreover, the municipalities in less developed areas also lack access to modern and affordable energy carriers. With the objective of overcoming this issue, an important step Table 2.2 Regional Differences in WM and Economic Indicators

North Northeast Southeast South Midwest Brazil

Pop. With Access Urban Pop. With Selective Waste to Waste Collection (%) Collection (%)

MWM Share of MWM Cost Cost on Municipal (US$a/ Budget (%) capita)

GDP per Capita 2015 (US$a/year)

93.1 94.7 98.7 97.9 98.1 97.1

3.7 4.1 3.4 2.7 3.6 3.4

5400 4412 11,109 10,143 11,038 8491

26.0 40.3 67.4 83.5 67.6 73.3

25.4 33.4 29.6 34.7 32.0 31.8

a Conversion rate: 3.40 BRL/USD. Source: SNIS, 2016. Sistema Nacional de Informac¸o˜es Sobre Saneamento. http://app.cidades.gov.br/serieHistorica/; IBGE, 2017. Contas Regionais 2015: Queda No PIB Atinge Todas as Unidades Da Federac¸a˜o Pela Primeira Vez Na Serie.

4 5

Most recent available data (ABRELPE, 2016). Using conversion rate of 3.40 BRL/USD.

Overview of Developing Countries

was taken with the Light for All6 program, which focused on providing energy for basic needs and allowed access to more than 99% of the urban population. A further step to take is supplying energy for productive activities (i.e., water pumping, irrigation, and agricultural processes), promoting economic development, generating income, and improving the living conditions (Coelho et al., 2015; Coelho and Goldemberg, 2013). The adoption of WtE systems is an important option to help implement the second step since it has the potential to produce higher amounts of energy for productive activities (Coelho et al., 2015; Sanches-Pereira et al., 2016). In conclusion, although the NPSW is a vital starting point in dealing with the waste management problems and providing a holistic regulatory framework, it presents poor results, especially in less developed municipalities. The use of WtE systems in the municipal SWM offers the opportunity to deal with these issues once this synergy can help expand the energy supply and contribute to reducing the negative impacts of the inadequate disposal. Albeit, it will require long-term planning and investment, besides the appropriate regulatory framework that considers the regional disparities. 2.1.1.3 Ecuador—Economic Overview Rafael Soria and Laura Salgado Departamento de Ingenierı´a Meca´nica, Escuela Politecnica Nacional, Ladro´n de Guevara, Quito, Ecuador

According to the World Bank, the total GDP (current prices) has grown significantly from 2000 (18.32 billion US$) until 2017, when Ecuador registered the highest value of its history with 103.06 billion US$ (World Bank, 2017). The GDP per capita (at current prices) in 2017 was 6199 US$ (World Bank, 2017). On the other hand, according to the Central Bank of Ecuador (BCE), the annual GDP growth rate in 2017 was 0.7%, which for 2017 would conduct a total GDP of 100.5 billion US$ (this is a prevision, so far there is no official value) (BCE, 2017a). Historically in Ecuador, the oil resources have been the key driver for economic development. According to the Ministry of Hydrocarbons of Ecuador, the proven oil reserves (1P) of Ecuador by the end of 2017 were 1703 million barrels (Ministerio de Hidrocarburos, 2018). During the last decade Ecuador has produced an average of 519,000 oil barrels/day and has exported an average of 349,000 oil barrels/day (MICSE, 2016; OLADE, 2017). Based on that information, the indicator of horizon of proven reserves, the proved reserves/annual average production (R/P) would be 9 years. This indicator is an alert to start planning the medium and long-term energy system and an economic transition in Ecuador. One of the options to supply additional energy is the energetic use of waste (WtE) by using MSW, agro-industrial residues, and sewage water as sources of energy. 6

Luz Para Todos, in Portuguese.

15

Suani Teixeira Coelho et al.

16 Losses (technical and no technical) 12%

Public lighting and public services 5%

Other 9%

Industrial 24%

Residential 32%

Commercial 18%

Fig. 2.3 Public service electricity consumption by sector. Total: 22 TWh in 2016. (Source: Own elaboration, based on MEER (2017).)

In January 2017 oil exports (568 million US$) represented 36% of total exports (BCE, 2017b). Nonoil exports are based on shrimps, banana, cacao, tuna & fish, and coffee. Imports are mostly associated with raw materials, capital goods, consumption goods, and oil products. In 2017 Ecuador had a positive commercial balance of 91.53 million US$ (including 3.71 billion of oil trades and 3.62 billion of nonoil trades) (BCE, 2018). Ecuador’s 2015 total energy consumption, 94.68 millions of barrels of oil equivalent (BOE) is characterized by the consumption of fossil fuels (78%), followed by electricity (15%), and the remaining by other minor sources (firewood and biomass) (MICSE, 2016). Total final energy consumption was 89.32 million BOE. The transport sector is the largest final energy consumer (46%) (gasoline and diesel), followed by industry (19%), and the residential sector (13%), with the remaining energy used by the commercial and other sectors. Total annual electricity demand has grown at an average rate of 5.8%/year over the last decade (2007–16) (MEER, 2017). The total electricity consumption reached 22 TWh in 2016; the electricity consumption share by sector is presented in Fig. 2.3. 2.1.1.4 Mexico—Economic Overview Gustavo Solórzano Asociacio´n Mexicana de Ingenierı´a, Ciencia y Gestio´n Ambiental, A.C. (AMICA), Mexico City, Mexico

Mexico is located in North America, with a surface area of 1,964,375 km2; it is the world’s 13th largest country by total area, and the 5th largest in the Americas. Mexico’s total population reached 123.5 million inhabitants in 2017; Mexico City, the country’s capital city, is the most densely populated area with 5967 inhabitants/km2, while the national average was 61 inhabitants/km2 in 2015 (CONAPO, 2017).

Overview of Developing Countries

17 Total generated energy: 159.819 GWh 5.31 15.51

79.18

Fossil

Renewable

Other clean

Fig. 2.4 Power generation sources (first half 2017). (Data from SENER, S.d., 2017. Reporte de avance de energías limpias. 1er semestre 2017. SENER, Ciudad de Mexico. Retrieved April 23, 2018.)

According to the World Bank, Mexico reported a GDP per capita (current USD) equivalent to 8902.8 in 2017, while its GDP (current USD) for the same year was 1.285 trillion US$ (constant 2010 US$), positioning Mexico as the second largest economy among countries in the LAC region. Since 2004, the mean annual growth rate for energy generation with renewable sources has been 3.2%. By the end of first half of 2017, Mexico generated 20.82% of electric power from clean sources. As of June 30, 2017, clean energy-based power generation reached 33,274.31 GWh, which is equivalent to 8.79% increase compared to the first half of 2016. Fig. 2.4 illustrates power generation sources (first half of 2017) and show energy sources, total and renewable. It is important to note that although Mexico is an oilproducing country, it is committed to increase the contribution of clean energies to power generation to 35% of the share by 2024 (SENER, 2017) (Fig. 2.5).

2.1.2 Environmental Overview 2.1.2.1 Argentina—Environmental Overview Estela Santalla Departamento Ingenierı´a Quı´mica, Facultad de Ingenierı´a/UNICEN, Buenos Aires, Argentina

According to the Second Biennial Update Report of Argentina to the UNFCCC (2017), the waste sector generated 13.9 MtCO2e in 2014 being MSW disposed on land responsible for 49% of these emissions. From the total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of Argentina, MSW represents 2% (6.81 MtCO2e) while industrial wastewater management (3.38 MtCO2e), domestic wastewater (3.69 MtCO2e), and the manure management from agricultural sector (2.14 MtCO2e) each one represent approximately 1%. Fig. 2.6 details the Argentinean GHG emissions pathway in the different scenarios evaluated.

18

Suani Teixeira Coelho et al.

Fig. 2.5 Power from renewable sources. (Data from SENER, S.d., 2017. Reporte de avance de energías limpias. 1er semestre 2017. SENER, Ciudad de Mexico. Retrieved April 23, 2018.)

Fig. 2.6 Emissions pathway in the BAU, unconditional and conditioned measures scenarios. (Source: http://www4.unfccc.int/ndcregistry/PublishedDocuments/Argentina%20First/Traducci%C3%B3n% 20NDC_Argentina.pdf.)

According to the Decisions 1/CP.19 and 1/CP.20 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Argentina presented on October 1, 2015 its Intended nationally determined Contributions (INDC), which was revised after the Paris Agreement. The NDC presented a new goal of CO2e emissions as result of the mitigation

Overview of Developing Countries

Fig. 2.7 Nationally determined contribution of Argentina. (Source: https://www.argentina.gob.ar/ ambiente/sustentabilidad/planes-sectoriales.)

measures proposed for 2030 in energy, forest, transport, industry, agriculture-livestock, infrastructure, and land sectors. These goals were performed through the corresponding sectoral climate change plans (Fig. 2.7), which for the waste sector, for 2018, is not still elaborated. The Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development, through the Secretary of Control and Environmental Monitoring,7 as the result of the 2020 Implementation Tables Recycling of different waste streams, participated by most of the actors of the civil society linked to the waste sector, elaborated a document that assumes the current regulations regarding waste management. The purpose is to build, on its base, the desirable normative structure in matter of waste, in light of the identified needs. Such information indicates that the current regulation poses a series of difficulties that hinder the implementation of public policies according to the current context and management needs. Among the most significant points, which can alter the current scenario of technological decisions for the treatment of the MSW, is the following are proposed: • Decrease the generation of waste and promote its proper management through the establishment of extended producer responsibility. • Collect the guiding principles in waste management such as gradualism, extended responsibility, shared responsibility, integrated life cycle, from cradle to cradle, and from cradle to grave. • Establish the responsibilities of the subjects that intervene during the life cycle (generator, transporter, and operator), best available practices, traceability. 7

https://www.argentina.gob.ar/ambiente/preservacion-control/estructura-normativa-residuos.

19

Suani Teixeira Coelho et al.

20 Existing regulations Basilea/Estocolmo/ Rotterdam/ Minamata SAICM

National Constitution International Agreements

Including the responsibility extended to the producer Management and traceability system

General Waste Law

Minimun budget plan MSW management

Contaminated sites Packaging Debris

Organic amendment Electronic waste

Hazardous waste management

Emissions from fixed and mobile sources Consumable electronic waste (batteries, cartridges, lamps)

Management of phytosanitary containers

Effluents discharge Tires Paints and solvents

Oils

Expired medications

Decree for special waste

Fig. 2.8 Normative structure proposed by the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development. (Source: https://www.argentina.gob.ar/ambiente/preservacion-control/estructura-normativa-residuos.)

The document also claims for a law of minimum budgets that allows the updating of the technical criteria, delimits competences and criteria for the control of the atmospheric emissions, contemplating a traceability system for the monitoring and control of the waste, unifying the management at the national level national, and creating the corresponding records. In addition, it should contemplate a mandatory contribution for the management of each product placed on the market when it is finally disposed by the consumer. Fig. 2.8 summarizes the proposal of the new normative structure for the waste sector. Within the clean development mechanism (CDM) scenario, five projects of GHG mitigation based on biodigestion technology were registered in Waste Handling and Disposal category. All of them belonged to the agro-industrial sector and focused on the capture of methane from wastewater and the use for thermal or fossil fuel replacement; nevertheless, none of these projects achieved the issuance of CERs (Blanco et al., 2016). A study on the environmental impacts of the intensive production of milk (dairy) and meat (beef, pig, and poultry) in Argentina revealed that these activities consider neither the final destination of the waste nor the lifecycle of the product. Thus, in the usual practice treatments of wastewater or manure until discharge to soil or to the nearest surface water course are almost absent, ignoring the buffering capacity of the ecosystem to absorb them (Co´rdoba et al., 2008). The significant GHG mitigation potential of these sectors was confirmed through another study based on a resource assessment of carbon offsets in the most productive regions of the country, which revealed that sugar distilleries resulted the sector with the highest potential followed by swine, dairy, slaughterhouses, and citrus processing (USEPA, 2009). A preliminary assessment of technologies for GHG mitigation in the waste sector in Argentina revealed that the capture of methane and fossil fuel substitution for energy use

Overview of Developing Countries

(thermal and/or electricity) by applying biodigestion in the agro-industrial sector (slaughterhouse, citric, sugar, and dairy) could achieve a reduction of approximately 700,000 tCO2eq per year (TNA, 2012).

2.1.2.2 Brazil—Environmental Overview Vanessa Pecora Garcilasso and Fernando C. de Oliveira Research Group on Bioenergy, Institute of Energy and Environment, University of Sa˜o Paulo, Sa˜o Paulo, Brazil

In 2015, Brazil has emitted around 64 million tons of carbon dioxide related to waste sector, which represent around 3.34% of national emissions. In the period from 1970 to 2015, the cumulative volume corresponds to 1582 million tons of CO2e or 2.38% of the total accumulated emissions in Brazil. Despite its low contribution, the waste sector is marked by strong growth (ICLEI, 2017). Proper waste handling is an important strategy for environmental preservation and for the promotion and protection of health. Once packed in controlled landfills or dumps, SWs may compromise the quality of soil, water, and air, as they are sources of volatile organic compounds, pesticides, solvents, and heavy metals (DEWHA, 2009). The decomposition of the organic matter present in the waste results in the formation of a dark-colored liquid, called slurry, which can contaminate the soil and the surface water by contaminating the groundwater. There may also be the formation of toxic gases, asphyxiation, and explosives that accumulate underground or are thrown in the air (Gouveia et al., 2010). The storage and final disposal sites become favorable environments for the proliferation of vectors and other disease-transmitting agents. There may also be the emission of particles and air pollutants directly from the burning of garbage outdoors or incineration of waste without the use of appropriate control equipment. In general, these degradation impacts extend beyond the areas of final waste disposal, affecting the entire population. There are also risks to people’s health, especially for the professionals most directly involved with the handling of the waste, as in the case of operational staff of the sector, which mostly does not have the least measures of occupational prevention and safety. The situation becomes even more critical for individuals who work and live in the recovery of waste materials, who perform their work in very unhealthy conditions, usually without protective equipment, resulting in high likelihood of acquiring diseases. These people, who work directly with waste, especially the pickers of recyclable materials, are specifically vulnerable to these issues. The treatment and disposal of MSW also encompass a set of activities and processes that generate direct and indirect jobs. Such activities range from collecting, sorting, and recycling that involve several processes of transformation of materials into new products, treatment technologies, energy recovery, and the final disposal (DEWHA, 2009).

21

Suani Teixeira Coelho et al.

22

2.1.2.3 Ecuador—Environmental Overview Rafael Soria and Laura Salgado Departamento de Ingenierı´a Meca´nica, Escuela Politecnica Nacional, Ladro´n de Guevara, Quito, Ecuador

Although Ecuador generates less than 0.5% of the global GHG emissions causing global climate change, it is voluntarily committed to face this challenge. In this way, in 1992 Ecuador signed the UNFCCC; in 1999, the Kyoto Protocol; in 2016, the Paris Agreement and, consequently, Ecuador participates of international negotiations about climate change and locally generates the regulatory and institutional framework to comply with the objectives set by the UNFCCC. Ecuador presented to UNFCCC three National Communications about Climate Change (in 2001, 2011, and 2017). The Third National Communication updated the inventory of GHG for 2012, and reported the efforts and achievements of Ecuador in terms of mitigation and adaptation to climate change in the period 2011–15 (MAE, 2017a). Fig. 2.9 presents the most updated official data, from the Third National Communication, about the evolution of GHG emissions, from 85 million tCO2e in 1994 to 81 million tCO2e in 2012. Most of the emissions were generated by the energy sector (46.6%), followed by net LULUCF (land use, land-use change, and forestry) emissions

100 90

85

83 79

80

81

81

70 Residues 60

LULUCF Agriculture

50

Industrial processes 40

Energy

30 20 10 0 1994

2000

2006

2010

2012

Fig. 2.9 Evolution of the national inventory of GHG (million tCO2e). (Data from MAE, 2017a. Tercera n Nacional del Ecuador a la Convencio n Marco de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Cambio Comunicacio Climático, first ed. MAE, Quito, Ecuador.)

Overview of Developing Countries

(25.3%). Third place is occupied by the agriculture sector, with 18.2% of GHG emitted to the atmosphere. The industrial processes and residues sectors represent, in total, approximately 10% of the Ecuadorian emissions. The emissions generated by the residues sector were 3.4 million tCO2e in 2012, 87% by final disposal activities of solid residues and 17% by sewage water disposal. The GHG emissions of the residues sector represents 4.2% of total national GHG emissions (MAE, 2017a). LULUCF emissions showed a sustained reduction in net GHG emissions throughout the period 1994–2012, mainly due to the increment in absorptions and the reduction in emissions in the “Land converted to agricultural land” category. The GHG emissions in the energy sector grew from 15 million tCO2e in 1994 to 38 million tCO2e in 2012. Within the energy sector, only 45% of the emissions are related to fuel combustion in transport activities, showing the importance of fostering mitigation activities in this subsector. Aware of the adverse effects of climate change and in strict respect to international agreements, Ecuador signed the Paris Agreement on climate change. The Intended Ecuadorian Nationally Determined Contribution were submitted to COP21 on October 13, 2015 (UNFCCC, 2015). Table 2.3 summarizes the INDC of Ecuador for 2025. These commitments did not consider any specific INDC in the residues sector. The first NDC was prepared and presented in March 2019, which also incorporated specific commitments for the residues sector. 2.1.2.4 Mexico—Environmental Overview Gustavo Solórzano Asociacio´n Mexicana de Ingenierı´a, Ciencia y Gestio´n Ambiental, A.C. (AMICA), Mexico City, Mexico

Mexico’s GHG emissions reached 683 Mt of CO2e in 2015 excluding LULUCF, or 535 Mt of CO2e if this last category is considered. Methane, an important GHG related to waste sector, represented 21% of the total emissions, equivalent to nearly 144 MtCO2e. The GHG emissions from waste sector (INECC, 2018, as shown in Fig. 2.10) represented 7% in 2015, equivalent to 46 Mt of CO2e for the same year (contribution of each waste category to this figure is shown in INECC, 2018) (Fig. 2.11), including wastewater treatment. This reveals an important increasing trend for the sector, as in 2013 emissions from the waste sector reached only 31 Mt of CO2e, equivalent to 4.6% of GHG total emissions (665 Mt CO2e) (INECC, 2018). Regarding contributions by gas type, it is interesting to note that in 2015 nearly 94% of the GHG emissions from the waste sector corresponded to methane. Mexico has committed unconditionally to carry out mitigation actions that would reduce its GHG emissions by 22% by 2030, which is equivalent to a reduction of 210 Mt of total CO2e emissions, with 35 Mt corresponding to the waste sector.

23

Suani Teixeira Coelho et al.

24 Table 2.3 Ecuador’s INDCs Commitments for 2025

Sector

Subsector

INDCs– Energy

Power

INDC—Unconditional (Additional to the BAU)

Deployment of 2828 MW of hydroelectric plants up to 2025

Oil and gas, power

INDCLULUCF

INDC Conditioned to International Support (Additional to the BAU)

Deployment of 4382 MW of hydroelectric plants up to 2025 NA

Optimization of the use of associated gas from oil exploitation in the Amazon region to produce electricity. This electricity would replace diesel and would be use to supply the power demand from oil industry, water pumping, oil industry camps and communities in covered areas (sites closed to oil fields) Oil and gas, Link of isolated power systems from oil NA power industry in the Amazon region with the National Interconnected Power System (SNI) The incorporation Residential sector The incorporation of 1,500,000 of 4,300,000 induction stoves, replacing LPG induction stoves, stoves replacing LPG stoves Adding an Through the National Forestry Forestry and additional 2 Restoration Program, Ecuador plans management of million hectares to restore 500,000 additional protected areas of restored areas hectares (in comparison to the in 2017 restored areas until 2015) until 2017 and increase this total by 100,000 ha per year until 2025

Source: Own elaboration, based on UNFCCC (2015).

Mexico has also committed to achieving a reduction of 51% in its black carbon emissions by the same year (SEMARNAT, 2015a,b). In 2015, a total of 54.1 million tons of MSW were produced in Mexico. This figure represents an increase of 61.2% when compared to 10.24 million tons of similar waste generated in 2003. The per capita generation reached 1.2 kg/day in 2015, with higher values in large cities and in cities along the border with the United States (SEMARNAT, 2016).

Overview of Developing Countries

25

Total emissions: 683 Mt CO2e 7%

5%

8% 10%

70%

Energy

Cattle

Industry

Waste

Aggregated sources

Fig. 2.10 GHG emissions by sector (2015). (Data from INECC, 2018. Investigaciones 2018–2013 en materia de mitigación del cambio climático. Retrieved April 16, 2018, from Instituto Nacional de Ecología y Cambio Climático: https://www.gob.mx/inecc/documentos/investigaciones-2018-2013-en-materia-demitigacion-del-cambio-climatico.)

Waste sector emissions: 46 Mt CO2e 3.2%

0.4%

48.6% 47.7%

Wastewater treatment and disposal

MSW disposal

MSW incineration and open burning

Biological treatment of MSW

Fig. 2.11 GHG emissions from waste sector (2015). (Data from INECC, 2018. Investigaciones 2018–2013 en materia de mitigación del cambio climático. Retrieved April 16, 2018, from Instituto Nacional de Ecología y Cambio Climático: https://www.gob.mx/inecc/documentos/investigaciones-2018-2013en-materia-de-mitigacion-del-cambio-climatico.)

Waste composition in Mexico, shown in Fig. 2.12, is characterized by a significant share of organic waste, as is the case in most developing countries. As for waste collection coverage, in Mexico 93.4% of generated waste was collected in 2012, a figure that compares favorably to collection rates in developed countries.

Suani Teixeira Coelho et al.

26

n del Medio Ambiente Fig. 2.12 MWS composition. (Data from SEMARNAT, 2015a. Informe de la Situacio n 2015. Capítulo.) en Mexico. Edicio

Recycling rates vary according to the materials present in waste composition. In 2012, paper and cardboard reached a 32% recycling rate, while recycling of PET (polyethylene terephthalate) reached 15.8%, and glass 13.8% (although PET recyclers’ association claims over 50% recycling rate for this material) (ECOCE, 2018). The national average rate for recycling was 9.6% in 2012 (SEMARNAT, 2016). Finally, waste disposal facilities in 2013 in Mexico are 21% open dumps, while 74.5% goes to sanitary landfills (SEMARNAT, 2016).

2.1.3 Social Overview 2.1.3.1 Argentina—Social Overview Alejandro Cittadino* and Atilio Armando Savino† * Departamento de Ecologı´a, Genetica y Evolucio´n—Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina † International Solid Waste Association (ISWA), Buenos Aires, Argentina

According to the national census of 2010 in Argentina, the population was 40,117,096, which means an average density of 14.4 cap/km2, without considering Antarctica and the South Atlantic Islands (INDEC, 2010). About 91.03% of the population is located in urban areas (more than 2000 inhabitants) and 47.4% of the population lives in urban agglomerates of more than 500.000 inhabitants, The Metropolitan Area of Buenos Aires (AMBA)8 being the most important representing 31.9% of the total population. The rest corresponds to the Gran Co´rdoba (3.6%), Gran Rosario (3.1%), Gran Mendoza (2.3%), Gran San Miguel de Tucuman (2%), La Plata (1.6%), Mar del Plata (1.5%), and Gran Salta (1.34%) (INDEC, 2010). The Argentine provinces are also divided into departments and each department includes one or more municipalities, except the Province of Buenos Aires, which is divided into districts that match the number of municipalities. The CABA is organized into 8

City of Buenos Aires and 24 districts of the Province of Buenos Aires.

Overview of Developing Countries

communes. The number of districts, departments, and communes amounts to a total of 527 and the municipalities to 2165 (INDEC, 2010). According to the HDI computed by the PNUD (2016), Argentina ranked 45th out of 188 countries. Historically, the poverty and indigence levels have been very high, with a minimum average of over 20% in the last 25 years (PNUD, 2017). In the second half of 2017, the percentage of households below the poverty line9 was 17.9%, which comprises 25.7% of the population. Within this group, must be considered a 3.5% of indigent households,10 that is, a 4.8% of the population (INDEC, 2018). Although Argentina is eminently an urban country, it presents a significant housing shortage, and alarming signs of residential segregation between the gated communities where high-income people live and slums and irregular settlements. In terms of management, urban SW is responsibility of the municipalities. In general, there are no systematized statistical databases distinguishing the different stages of the waste management. In 2005 the Secretary of Environment and Sustainable Development, nowadays upgraded to Ministry, developed the “National Strategy for Urban Solid Waste” (ENGIRSU in Spanish) with the aim of reverting inadequate practices in the management of MSW, promoting the closure of open dumps, the waste reduction, recovery and recycling, and the construction of landfills. In this framework, several diagnostic screening studies and projects have been developed (ENGIRSU, 2005, 2016; ARS, 2012; Banco Mundial, 2015). Regarding waste collection, 94.82% of urban households have this service; this percentage decreases to 89.91% when considering rural areas. The areas with the greatest deficiency correspond to the rural areas and within the urban areas, mainly slums and deprived urban neighborhoods that surround the city of Buenos Aires. Most of the provinces have a collection coverage greater than 80%, being the lowest rates in the Northeast region (provinces such as Santiago del Estero and Formosa have coverage percentages of 64.8% and 64.04%, respectively), followed by the provinces of the Northwest region (Banco Mundial, 2015; INDEC, 2010; ENGIRSU, 2016) (Fig. 2.13). Taking into account the average coverage collection rate and considering the total population estimated in the last census and its 2018 projection, there would be more than 4 million people without service of regular collection. The waste generation varies between 0.91 and 0.95 kg/capita/day with a maximum of 1.52 for the CABA and a minimum of 0.44 for the Province of Misiones (ENGIRSU, 2005). In 2012 the Solid Urban Waste Association (ARS, 2012) estimated an average waste generation of 1.022 kg/capita/day with a maximum and minimum in the CABA 9

Percentage calculated considering the evolution of the basic food basket and the total basic basket, compared to the income of households. 10 The concept “indigence line” establishes whether households have enough income to meet the food basket capable of satisfying the minimum nutritional requirements. In this way, households that not exceed that threshold or line are considered indigent.

27

28

Suani Teixeira Coelho et al.

Fig. 2.13 Municipal solid waste collection coverage in percentages by province in Argentina. (Data from Estrategia Nacional para la Gestión Integral de Residuos Sólidos Urbanos (ENGIRSU), 2016.)

and Misiones (1.252 and 0.641 kg/capita/day, respectively). Finally, the Banco Mundial (2015) considers an average waste generation of 1.22 kg/capita/day. As previously mentioned, the lack of statistical records makes the estimation of waste generation per capita and its evolution over time difficult. However, the average of the different estimates previously cited indicates that the country’s waste generation is about 1.03 kg/capita/day, being the provinces with higher income those that are above it, especially the CABA. It is important to note that, considering these information and population estimations from INDEC, Argentina would generate between 40,489,997 and 55,667,516 kg of MSW/day. According to the survey carried out by the Banco Mundial (2015) there are 150 mechanized MSW separation plants in Argentina (Fig. 2.14), with a total operative capacity of 8665 ton/day. They work below their capacity, there are even plants that although were acquired never started to operate and others that closed due to lack of maintenance. Even without considering these cases, taking only into account the installed capacity, the maximum treated fraction would be 17.7% of the total waste

Overview of Developing Countries

29

35 29

31

25 19

20

15

Buenos Aires

Santa Fe

Entre Ríos

8

Córdoba

Río Negro

8

Ciudad de Buenos Aires

Misiones

Provinces

6

San Luis

Formosa

La Pampa

Chaco

Catamarca

4 Mendoza

1 2

4

Chubut

1

3 4 San Juan

1

3 Corrinetes

1

3

Neuquén

1

3

Santiago del Estero

0

Salta

0

La Rioja

0

0

3

Tierra del fuego

5

Jujuy

10

Santa Cruz

15

Tucuman

Number of plants

30

Fig. 2.14 Number of mechanized municipal solid waste separation plants by Province in Argentina. (Data from Banco Mundial, 2015. Diagnóstico de la Gestión Integral de Residuos Sólidos Urbanos en la Argentina. Recopilación, generación y análisis de datos – Recolección, barrido, transferencia, tratamiento y disposición final de Residuos Sólidos Urbanos. The World Bank.)

generated, about 49,070 ton/day (Banco Mundial, 2015). If the total number of separation plants, mechanized or not, is considered, then the total amount would be 187 (ENGIRSU, 2016). Unfortunately, there are no statistics of the amount of waste treated, recovered, and finally marketed. According to Banco Mundial (2015), recovery rates for plants that separate inorganic waste are less than 10%. Rates are low due to the lack of separation programs at source, insufficient or ineffective awareness campaigns, operational problems, and lack of plant maintenance. There is also a considerable spatial heterogeneity with strong concentration of plants in the central region of the country, mainly in the provinces of Buenos Aires, Santa Fe, Entre Rios, and Cordoba (see Fig. 2.14). Finally, there is a mostly informal recovery system/circle organized by waste pickers, who salvages reusable or recyclable materials from the roadside and from the final disposition sites, like open dumps or landfills. Again, there is a lack of comprehensive statistical records. In the CABA, waste pickers are responsible for the recovery of 960 ton/day of the 6760 ton/day of waste generated (14.2%, according to official communications of the Government of the City of Buenos Aires). The three largest metropolitan areas in the country, Gran Buenos Aires, Gran Co´rdoba, and Gran Rosario, have composting plants. There are no formal records of the total number of plants in Argentina. It is suspected that this activity is more widespread in small cities associated with waste separation plants (ENGIRSU, 2005).

30

Suani Teixeira Coelho et al.

Fig. 2.15 Fraction of population served by landfills (by province): percentage of inhabitants that have an adequate final disposition service at provincial level, considering the total population of the municipalities that have a landfill over the total province population. Note: The numbers indicate the existing landfills. (Source: ENGIRSU (2016).)

According to official data (ENGIRSU, 2016), the population disposing MSW in landfills reaches 61% with great variability between the provinces (Fig. 2.15). There are six provinces that don’t have any landfill sites (La Rioja, Jujuy, Catamarca, Formosa, Corrientes y Chaco), but the rest have at least one. The total number of operative landfills in the country is 42 (Banco Mundial, 2015) (Fig. 2.15). The landfills of Argentina are located mainly in the main urban agglomerates and cities most visited by tourists. The greatest lack of coverage occurs in cities with low number of inhabitants: in municipalities with less than 15,000 inhabitants, only 9.4% of its population dispose adequately the waste generated, in cities where the inhabitants are between 15,000 and 50,000 the rate is 24.5% (Banco Mundial, 2015). The City of Buenos Aires together with 40 municipalities in the Buenos Aires Metropolitan Region (including the 24 of the AMBA) that are part of the regional system under management of the state company CEAMSE (Coordinacio´n Ecolo´gica

Overview of Developing Countries

´ rea Metropolitana Sociedad del Estado) represent 46% of the disposal in landfills in A Argentina. This percentage rises to 80% when considering the central region of the country (rest of Buenos Aires Province, Co´rdoba, Santa Fe, Entre Rı´os, and La Pampa), ENGIRSU (2016). The municipal waste not disposed in landfills at best goes to controlled dumps, but in most cases end up in open dumps (ENGIRSU, 2016; Banco Mundial, 2015). On the other hand, even in metropolitan areas served by landfills, open dumps are common. For example, in the Metropolitan Area of Buenos Aires, there are 292 illegal open dumps larger than 1 ha (Cittadino et al., 2012). 2.1.3.2 Brazil—Social Overview Vanessa Pecora Garcilasso and Fernando C. de Oliveira Research Group on Bioenergy, Institute of Energy and Environment, University of Sa˜o Paulo, Sa˜o Paulo, Brazil

Sanitation is one of the biggest challenges in Brazil. The levels of collection, disposal, or adequate treatment of water, sewage, and garbage interact with other indicators, such as income and education, and point to consequences such as the persistence of high number of hospitalizations due to illnesses related to lack of basic sanitation, more frequently in the North and Northeast regions. According to the latest version of the 2016 Panorama of the Solid Waste in Brazil, released in 2017 by the Brazilian Association of Companies for Public Cleaning and Special Waste, in 2016 Brazil generated about 78.3 million tons of solid urban waste, being collected only about 71.3 million tons, that is, 7 million tons were given an uncertain fate and inadequate disposal, being vectors of diseases and environmental pollution. Of all MSW collected in the country, only 58.4% are intended for landfills, and about 41.6% of MSW collected are sent to controlled landfills or dumps, where they do not receive the appropriate final treatment (ABRELPE, 2017). Fig. 2.16 shows the relation between produced and collected residues in Brazil, per region, in 2016, while Fig. 2.17 shows the final disposal of the collected residues, by region. Fig. 2.17 shows that only in the South and Southeast regions most of the collected wastes are intended for landfills. In other regions, most of the waste collected unfortunately still has its final destination inadequately disposed, via controlled landfills or dumps. The coverage of MSW collection services increased from 90.8% in 2015 to 91.2% in 2016 of the generated volume (ABRELPE, 2017). However, the selective collection did not advance at the same rate, so the recycling rates were stagnant for a few years. As a result, there is an overload on the final disposal systems of these wastes. It is noteworthy that since 2002 the garbage collector activity in Brazil has been recognized as a professional category, registered in the Brazilian Occupation Classification (CBO), as “Recyclable Material Collector.” This new class of workers performs the function of collecting, transporting, sorting, pressing, storing, and trading these materials to be reused (MNCR, 2014). The problem today is not in legally acknowledging the

31

Suani Teixeira Coelho et al.

32 Solid urban waste generated X collected in Brazil, by region — base 2016 (ton/year) 40,000,000 30,000,000 20,000,000 10,000,000

Chart Area North

North east Generated (ton/year)

Midwest

Southeast

South

Collected (ton/year)

Fig. 2.16 Solid urban waste generated vs collected in Brazil, by region—base year 2016 (ton/year). (Adapted from ABRELPE, 2017. Panorama dos Resíduos Sólidos no Brasil 2017.)

Final destination of solid urban waste collected in Brazil, by region—base 2016 (ton/year) 30,000,000 25,000,000 20,000,000 15,000,000 10,000,000 5,000,000 – North

Northeast

Landfills (adequate disposal)

Midwest

Southeast

South

Controlled landfills or dumps (inadequate disposal)

Fig. 2.17 Final destination of solid urban waste collected in Brazil, by region—base 2016 (ton/year). (Adapted from ABRELPE, 2017. Panorama dos Resíduos Sólidos no Brasil 2017.)

garbage collectors as professionals, but rather in granting their rights to decent conditions of work and life beyond the sole standpoint of survival. Waste collectors are fundamental in the garbage collection process. Recycling in Brazil is done at the expense of the collector’s work and not the selective collection. The fact that the garbage collectors are in the CBO could be an indicative of the redemption of these workers’ dignity by placing them into the framework of public policies. Unfortunately, a contrasting situation is observed in the country. The collectors are exposed to health risks, social prejudices, and deregulation of labor rights, conditions that are extremely precarious, both in the informality of work and wage. In

Overview of Developing Countries

addition, they do not have access to formal education and technical improvements. To have an effective social inclusion, proposed by the Brazilian Policy of Solid Waste, not only the aspects of the right to work and income should be the focus of the actions of public authorities, but also the health conditions and the risks to which the recycling workers are exposed. 2.1.3.3 Ecuador—Social Overview Rafael Soria and Laura Salgado Departamento de Ingenierı´a Meca´nica, Escuela Politecnica Nacional, Ladro´n de Guevara, Quito, Ecuador

Ecuadorian population has increased from 12.4 million inhabitants in 2000 to 16.4 million inhabitants in 2016 (OLADE, 2017). Current annual average growth rate of population is estimated at 1.5%. Official population projections estimate 19.8 million inhabitants in 2030 and 23.4 million inhabitants in 2050 (INEC, 2012). Historically, from 1982 to 2013 the average monthly family income was always lower than the value of the basic family consumption basket (INEC, 2017b). According to the national survey of income and expenses in urban and rural households (ENIGHUR) in 2013, only 58.8% of Ecuadorians had the capacity to save money, while 41.1% registered more expenses than income. The average of total monthly income in Ecuador was 893 USD/person in 2013, while the average monthly expenditure was 810 USD. In rural areas the situation is different; both statistics vary between 567 US$ and 526 USD, respectively. Only during the first semesters of 2014, 2015, and 2016 the opposite situation was verified. More recently, in December 2017, the basic familiar basket was valued at 708.98 USD, which is higher than the average monthly family income of 700 USD, in the same month (INEC, 2017b). Although during the period 2007–17 the average of the relation between population with employment and population in economic activity age is 95.2%, the quality of this employment has decreased substantially from the second semester of 2012, when the relation between underemployed and employment was 9.4%, up to a level of 22.3% in March 2017 (INEC, 2017b). Recently the Ecuadorian economy has shown some signs of improvement, demonstrating an indicator of unemployment of 19.8% in December 2017 (INEC, 2017b). The multidimensional poverty index until December 2016 was 35.1%, while the monetary poverty until June 2017 was 23.1%. In 2016, a total of 12,898 tons of MSW/day was collected at national level (AME/ INEC, 2017), which represents an average rate of daily waste production per capita (PPC) of 0.73 kg/person/day (MAE, 2017b). In Ecuador 74.3% of the population live in regions with population concentrations of 2000 people or more, which is understood as urban regions (MIDUVI, 2016). The average PPC in urban regions is 0.58 kg/person/day (AME/INEC, 2017). In Quito, the capital of Ecuador, the PPC

33

Suani Teixeira Coelho et al.

34

4%

5% Organic

6%

Glass, wood, scrap, rubber, textile, electronics, metal, etc.

11% Plastic 58%

Paperboard Paper

16% Nonhazardous sanitary waste

Fig. 2.18 Average composition of MSW in urban regions in Ecuador in 2016. (Adapted from AME/INEC, 2017. Estadística de Información Ambiental Económica en Gobiernos Autónomos Descentralizados Municipales – Gestión de Residuos Sólidos 2016. INEC, Quito, Ecuador. Available from: http://www. ecuadorencifras.gob.ec/documentos/web-inec/Encuestas_Ambientales/Gestion_Integral_de_Residuos_ Solidos/2016/Documento%20tecnico%20Residuos%20solidos%202016%20F.pdf.)

is 0.74 kg/person/day (EMASEO, 2014). The average composition of MSW in urban regions in 2016 is shown in Fig. 2.18. The average humidity content of urban MSW in Ecuador is 51% and the average low heat value (LHV) is 5.5 MJ/kg (TNA/MAE/ URC/GEF, 2013). Ecuador has 221 Decentralized Autonomous Governments (GADs) of which 38% of GADs use landfills for the final disposition of MSW, while the remaining GADs use garbage dumps (50%) and provisional cell (12%) (see Fig. 2.19). According to the National Population Census 2010, 62.7% of households deliver the residues to the garbage collector truck, 14.7% throw away the garbage to vacant lands, 17.9% incinerate garbage, and the remaining households use other forms of final waste disposition (INEC, 2010). One of the main threats that the GADs face for the integrated management of MSW is its economic management model. Currently in most of the GADs the rate charged by the MSW recollection system and final disposal is lower than the cost of the service, thus there is an important subsidy financed by the GADs. In this sense, 48% of GADs collect this rate through the electricity bill, 24% through the drinking water service and sewage water bill, 10.4% do not have regulations to collect this rate, 14% through direct payments to the municipality, and 3.6% through the property tax (AME/INEC, 2017). The incorporation of elements of differentiated collection, recycling, treatment, and use of residues in the operations of GADs is a priority for the Ministry of Environment (MAE), led by the National Program of Integrated Management of Solid Residues

Overview of Developing Countries

35

Provisional cell 12%

Garbage dump 50% Landfill 38%

Fig. 2.19 Final disposition of MSW in Ecuador by GADs. (Adapted from AME/INEC, 2017. Estadística de Información Ambiental Económica en Gobiernos Autónomos Descentralizados Municipales – Gestión de Residuos Sólidos 2016. INEC, Quito, Ecuador. Available from: http://www.ecuadorencifras.gob.ec/documentos/web-inec/Encuestas_Ambientales/Gestion_Integral_de_Residuos_Solidos/2016/Documento% 20tecnico%20Residuos%20solidos%202016%20F.pdf.)

(PNGIRS). Some of the GADs that succeed in carrying on vermiculture and composting are: Cuenca, Loja, Macas, Mejı´a, Atuntaqui, Otavalo, and the commonwealths of Patate-Pelileo and Mundo Verde. 2.1.3.4 Mexico—Social Overview Gustavo Solórzano Asociacio´n Mexicana de Ingenierı´a, Ciencia y Gestio´n Ambiental, A.C. (AMICA), Mexico City, Mexico

In 2017, the total population in Mexico was estimated at 123.5 million inhabitants (CONAPO, 2017). Available figures for 2015 indicate that 23% of the population was considered rural and 77% lived in urban areas, while 39.3% of the total population (or 47.8 million people) concentrated in 14 metropolitan zones with over 1 million inhabitants each. Around 53% of the population lives in locations above 1500 m (CONAGUA, 2016), although most hydraulic resources in the country are only available below this altitude. The HDI for Mexico has been reported as 0.756 for 2014; life expectancy at birth for same year was 76.8 years (UN, 2018). An estimated 55.3 million people or 46.2% of the population in Mexico lived in some degree of poverty in 2014. Of this figure, an estimated 11.4 million people lived in conditions of extreme poverty (CONAGUA, 2016).

Suani Teixeira Coelho et al.

36

As for water supply coverage, 92.5% of the Mexican population is served with piped potable water (with disaggregated figures of 95.7% for urban areas, and 81.6% for rural areas). The coverage for the population accessing sanitation facilities (sewerage systems) reached 91.4% of the population (96.6% urban, 74.2% rural areas) (CONAGUA, 2016).

2.2 ASIA: ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND SOCIAL OVERVIEW Shyamala K. Mani* and Bini Samal† *† National Institute of Urban Affairs (NIUA), India Habitat Centre, New Delhi, India Forest Research Institute, Dehradun, India

2.2.1 Economic Overview It is well known that in most Asian countries, the GDP lies between 2.5% and 4.5% and hence most of them fall under the category of developing countries (ADB, 2017). In most of the Asian countries, barring the affluent ones, about 13% of the population lives in low income and densely populated areas where sanitation and waste management services are not as per their country’s guidelines. The consequences of burgeoning population in urban centers are more noticeable in developing countries as compared to the developed countries. In India, about 31.2% population is now living in urban areas. Over 377 million urban people are living in 7935 towns/cities (Indian Census, 2011). The population residing in urban regions increased from 18% to 31.2% from 1961 to 2011, respectively (Indian Census, 2011). India is a vast country divided into 29 states and 7 union territories (UTs). There are three mega cities—Greater Mumbai, Delhi, and Kolkata—having a population of more than 10 million; 53 cities have a population over 1 million, and 415 cities have a population of 100,000 or more, but less than 1 million (Indian Census, 2011). It is projected that in Asia, India will continue to have a high population growth rate, surpassing Chinese population in the middle of the 2020s. India will be world’s most populous country at about 1.6 billion in 2040. Countries in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) have population larger than the European Union and its increase will be only second to India’s. China’s population, currently the world’s largest, around 2030, will be 1.41 billion but will decrease to 1.21 billion by 2040. China has more than 100 million elderly people aged 65 or more and this number will increase. In China, rural population aging is perceived to be a serious problem since the younger population would be in urban regions. There would be a continuous population increase in Asia as a whole. The share of Asia’s population globally would however fall from 55% in 2014 to 50% in 2040. After the United States and Europe, the Chinese economy, although currently the third largest in the world, has reduced its growth rate to about 7% due to reduced investment, thus slowing exports. This is because of economic slowing down in Europe and

Overview of Developing Countries

resource-rich countries. Asian emerging economies too have slowed down due to Chinese economic deceleration, which had earlier expanded because of rising exports to China. Singapore, Malaysia, and Thailand that focused on large share of their respective exports to China have also now slowed down because of the decline in Chinese demand. Since the world economy and the US economy are improving, emerging economies in Asia will improve. Downward pressure is because of weak oil prices exerted on Russia as well as Middle Eastern and Latin American countries, which are oil producing as well as resource-rich countries. Many economies including those in Asia will rebound through concerted medium and long-term international actions using appropriate fiscal and monetary policies. India is projected to be the new driver of global economic growth and will make its presence felt in the global arena. The Indian economy is projected to grow at an annual pace of 6.2%, fastest in the world. Foreign direct investment, domestic demand expansion, and structural reform would become India’s sources of economic growth. India’s exports to China accounted for only 0.7% of its gross domestic product and 4% of its total exports. Therefore, India won’t be affected by China’s slowing down of economic growth. China too will retain an annual economic growth rate of 5.1%. The annual growth rate of ASEAN economy will be 4.5%. There is no doubt that the current environment has changed because of rising wages and citizens’ growing consciousness of rights, from abundant surplus labor and low costs which drove export-oriented growth in Asia in the previous century to demand-driven economies currently. However, Asia will remain the center of global economic growth. Although there is no indication of limit on Asia’s economic growth, countries in Asia must take precautions against the so-called middle-income country trap.

2.2.2 Environmental Overview Agamuthu Pariatamby*, Bini Samal†, and Shyamala K. Mani‡ * University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia † Forest Research Institute, Dehradun, India ‡ National Institute of Urban Affairs (NIUA), India Habitat Centre, New Delhi, India

As urbanization and economic development increase in Asia, nowhere is the impact more obvious than in society’s SW. The urban areas of Asia produce about 760,000 tons of MSW per day, or approximately 2.7 million m3 per day. In 2025, this figure will increase to 1.8 million tons of waste per day, or 5.2 million m3 per day. These estimates are conservative; the real values are probably more than double this amount (What a waste: Solid Waste Management in Asia, World Bank, 1999). Gross domestic product (GDP) in Asia has expanded by 5.7% in 2016 and 2017. Inhabited by more than 4.45 billion people in 2016, equivalent to 59.78% of total world population, Asia recorded a huge amount of waste generation, making it the largest waste-producing continent on Earth. By 2025, it is estimated that 1.8 billion ton will be generated by urban cities alone in Asia (Fig. 2.20).

37

38

Suani Teixeira Coelho et al.

Fig. 2.20 Solid waste generation in the World until 2050. (Source: Prof. P. Agamuthu, University of Malaya (Personal communication) (2018).)

High-income countries produce the most waste per capita, while low-income countries produce the least SW per capita as illustrated in Fig. 2.20. Waste composition is influenced by factors such as culture, economic development, climate, and energy sources. Low-income countries have the highest proportion of organic waste. Paper, plastics, and other inorganic materials make up the highest proportion of MSW in high-income countries. Agricultural wastes are also very common in Asian cities and their quantities are shown in Fig. 2.21. Although waste composition is usually provided by weight, as a country’s affluence increases, waste volumes tend to be more important, especially regarding collection: organics and inert generally decrease in relative terms, while increasing paper and plastic increases overall waste volumes. This is depicted in Figs. 2.22–2.24 . It is also important to note that a lot of food gets wasted while moving across different stages of food supply chain. This is shown in Fig. 2.25. Primary waste collection services in Asian countries are often managed by community-based organizations or small enterprises and require the residents to pay monthly collection fees. The municipality would handle the intermediate collection, siting transfer, or even disposal. However, with rapidly increasing waste and high cost of transport or disposal, municipality usually encourages households to recycle as much as possible so that there is very little need for transport of collected waste (Zurbrugg, 2002). For collection and transportation of SW in Asian developing countries, SW cycles through collection, transportation, and final disposal. In Jakarta only 70% waste was

Overview of Developing Countries

Fig. 2.21 Agricultural waste generated by selected Asian countries.

Fig. 2.22 MSW generation per capita by city income level. (Data from Kawai, K., Tasaki, T., 2016. Revisiting estimates of municipal solid waste generation per capita and their reliability. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 18, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-015-0355-1.)

collected in 2007 (Pasang et al., 2007) while collection is improving currently. Despite this, mechanical equipment is used infrequently, and manual collection is more common for picking up the SW (Moghadam et al., 2009). The problem of SW collection is caused because of the nonavailability of transfer station facility as in Tibet ( Jiang et al., 2009).

39

Suani Teixeira Coelho et al.

40

Fig. 2.23 MSW as a fraction of total wastes generated in select Asian countries. aPollution Control Department, Thailand, 2015. Thailand State of pollution report—2015. Available from http://www. pcd.go.th/public/Publications/en_print_report.cfm?task¼en_report2558. (Accessed 30 September 2016). bPolicy Direction of Resource Circulation. Available from http://eng.me.go.kr/eng/web/index. do?menuId¼364. cThe data was extracted from the desktop research file conducted by Regional Resource Centre for Asia and the Pacific, Asian Institute of Technology (AIT RRC.AP, 2017). From Chapter 2: Waste generation. In: Asia Waste Management Outlook, p. 27.

Fig. 2.24 Waste composition as generated by selected countries in Asia (2016).

Overview of Developing Countries

Fig. 2.25 Region-wide food wastage across different stages of food supply chain.

The collection service is now door-to-door, such as in Jakarta (Pasang et al., 2007), in metro cities in India (Kumar et al., 2009) especially in Bangalore, etc. (Ramachandra and Bachamanda, 2007). As per a report by Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata (2012a,b) it has been observed that low-income countries continue to spend most of their MSW budgets on waste collection, with only a fraction going toward disposal. This is opposite in high-income countries where the main expenditure is on disposal. Fig. 2.26 shows the common MSW disposal methods in Asia by country income level. As stated by UNEP (2004), composting is one of the treatments for SW, which is more suitable than other treatments in Asian developing countries especially incinerators (Meidiana and Gamse, 2010). The component of MSW that is in abundance in those countries is decomposable organic matter, which has high moisture content. The constraints of composting in Asian developing countries includes high cost in operation and maintenance and poor maintenance and operation of facilities, incomplete separation of noncompostable materials, etc. Besides, higher cost of compost compared to commercial fertilizers also affects the implementation of composting (Tchobanoglous et al., 1993). The MSW in Asian developing countries is also plagued with low financial investment and low enforcement of environmental regulation (Visvanathan and Glawe, 2006). As to achieving targets of composting, in India composting is about 22% (MoHUA), and in other countries like Nepal, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka it is less than 10% (Khajuria et al., 2010).

41

Suani Teixeira Coelho et al.

42

Fig. 2.26 Common municipal solid waste disposal methods in Asia by country income level. Table 2.4 Municipal Waste Facilities in Selected Asian Countries Treatment Open Country Plants Incinerators MRF Dumpsites

PR China Indonesia Republic of Korea

419 20 4955

69 0 2028

NA 80 0

NA 400 325

Malaysia Philippines Singapore Thailand Viet Nam

NA NA NA NA NA

4 26 4 3 NA

1 2361 1 NA NA

261 826 – NA 49

Controlled Landfills

Sanitary Landfills

324 20 70 10 1348 (which includes solidification and gasification) 10 12 273 19 – 1 20 91 91 17

Source: Regional Resource Centre for Asia and the Pacific (2010).

Methods for final MSW treatment and disposal in developing Southeast Asian countries are commonly open dumping, landfill, and others (Table 2.4). There were proportions for various processes, namely, open dumping (more than 50%), landfill (10%–30%), incineration (2%–5%), and composting (<15%). The final disposal method is generally

Overview of Developing Countries

Africa

43

Europe

Asia

Caribbean

Latin America

Fig. 2.27 Size and proportion of dumpsites in Asia. (Source: P. Agamuthu, University of Malaya, Malaysia.)

open dumped landfill. In Malaysia the amount of SW collected for final disposal was about 70%, whereas 20%–30% was dumped or thrown into rivers (Meidiana and Gamse, 2010). Almost similar conditions were found in Indonesia, where dumped landfill was the primary method of disposal. In Indonesia, the SW transported to dumped landfill was 69%, buried 9.6%, composted 7.15%, burnt 4.8%, disposed off in the river 2.9%, and others 6.55% (Meidiana and Gamse, 2010). Out of the largest 50 dumpsites in the world, 17 dumpsites are found in Asia as shown in Fig. 2.27. Some alternative solutions that have been successfully implemented in Surabaya and Medan, Indonesia are as follows. In these cities, public awareness was improved after receiving guidance concerning environmental issues. The trainers were local leaders and facilitators with the assistance of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). This program was performed as community-based MSW (USAID, 2006). The program successfully applied 3Rs (reduce, reuse, and recycling), which included waste separation at the source and composting. A Refuse Bank, which received domestic recyclable waste from the community, has also been initiated and is operated in these cities. In Yala, Thailand, the poor communities reducing SW was triggered by exchanging of the trash for nutritional food (Mongkolnchaiarunya, 2005). Composting is one of the preferred methods for reducing biodegradable organic material. Composting can reduce more than 50% of biodegradable organic components of SW on-site. Composting decreased the residential MSW between 38% and 55% in Dar es Salaam City, Tanzania (Mbuligwe et al., 2002).

Suani Teixeira Coelho et al.

44

Table 2.5 Management of Municipal Solid Waste in Selected Asian Countries Solid Waste Disposal Site Incineration Composting (%) (%) (%) Country Income Level

Other (%)

Cambodia China India Indonesia Japan Malaysia Philippines Republic of Korea Singapore Thailand

0 0 10 13 17 6 5 0 0 15

Low Upper middle Lower middle Lower middle High Upper middle Lower middle High High Upper middle

100 85 75 70 3 93 85 35 6 70

0 15 5 2 74 0 0 28 94 5

0 0 10 15 0 1 10 37 0 10

Source: Seadon, J., 2017. Waste economics and financing. In: Modak, P. (Eds.), Asia Waste Management Outlook. United Nations Environment Programme.

Some developing countries in Asia are trying to change MSW into energy. India, Philippines, and Thailand have converted waste to energy. In Yala, Thailand, a program of recycling and garbage reducing was established through a relationship between poor communities and the municipal administration (Mongkolnchaiarunya, 2005). Similarly, in India, the government had established cooperation with private sector and citizens in recycling SW (Zurbrugg, 2002). On the other hand, initiatives of the private sector (citizen and enterprises) such as public-private-community partnership also helps to increase the efficiency of waste management systems (Zurbrugg, et al., 2004) (Table 2.5). 2.2.2.1 Challenges of MSW Management in Asian Developing Countries The main challenges on MSW management in Asian developing countries are related to appropriate waste disposal, and some figures are significant: • Only 10%–15% of the disposal sites are sanitary landfills. • In Indonesia and Vietnam, they are mostly nonengineered landfills. • There is a lack of appropriate technology to be applied, such as lack of lining system, landfill gas collection system, which makes these dumpsites hazardous. • Most dumpsites are a source of environmental pollution. • Leachate, landfill gas, pest, vermin, and scavengers abound at most dumpsites. The main problem of landfill managers is that there are no related policies in many Asian developing countries regarding what and how much can be disposed into landfill sites. Lack of knowledge of what materials are being dumped into landfills leads to the generation of leachates and landfill gas, which if not properly estimated can lead to a dangerous situation which can explode at any time.

Overview of Developing Countries

In many developing Asian countries, huge hillocks of garbage on the outskirts of cities can be seen smoldering continuously from the emission of methane and other gases generated by the burning of plastics and nonbiodegradable materials in the dump. This contributes substantially (up to 11%–12%) to particulate matter pollution as well as gaseous emissions harmful to health. Lack of segregation at source and processing leads to illegal dumping of waste on roadsides, riversides, and forestlands leading to soil and water contamination. Furthermore, illegal dumping of waste also attracts pests and vermin, which become transmitters of infectious diseases, a major public health issue in developing countries. 2.2.2.2 Pest and Vermin • Putrescible waste attracts insects and other animals. • Common insects such as flies and mosquitoes breed in water that gets accumulated in discarded containers, which are part of waste. Common animals such as domestic animals (dogs, cow, goat, etc.), monkeys, birds, etc., are attracted to easy and abundant food sources in the waste, which can lead to disease outbreaks, which then become difficult to control.

2.2.3 Social Overview Shyamala K. Mani* and Bini Samal† * National Institute of Urban Affairs (NIUA), India Habitat Centre, New Delhi, India † Forest Research Institute, Dehradun, India

Waste workers and pickers in developing countries are seldom protected from direct contact and injury and the co-disposal of hazardous and medical wastes with municipal wastes poses serious health threat (Alam and Ahmade, 2013). The US Public Health Service identified 22 human diseases that are linked to improper solid waste management (Singh, 2013). To address these issues in such areas, master planning are necessary to improve services, especially sanitation, and waste management. Current global MSW generation levels are approximately 1.3 billion ton per year and is expected to increase to approximately 2.2 billion ton per year by 2025 (Srivastava et al., 2014). This represents a significant increase in per capita waste generation rates, from 1.2 to 1.42 kg per person per day in the next 15 years (Srivastava et al., 2014). As urbanization and economic development increase in Asia, nowhere is the impact more obvious than in society’s SW. According to the University of Malaya, global MSW generation exceeded 17 billion ton in 2015 and is expected to reach 27 billion ton in 2050. Furthermore, besides the average generation going up to 1.42 kg/capita/day (ranging at 0.1–0.8 ton/capita/year), which mandates urgent need for sustainable waste management, adaptation of waste management hierarchy of 3Rs, workable and effective in many developed nations,

45

46

Suani Teixeira Coelho et al.

Fig. 2.28 MSW generation and projection for selected countries in Asia as linked to human development index. (Source: UNDP, 2016. Human Development Report 2016 Human Development for Everyone. United Nations Development Programme.)

was unsuccessful in many developing countries. The drivers of 3Rs practices need to be studied and enhanced in order to promote 3Rs in the developing nations. Fig. 2.28 depicts the MSW generation and its projected values in comparison to its HDI for various countries in Asia. Although the 3Rs are considered the best ways to reduce waste generation and enhance its reuse and recovery, there are many challenges in achieving them. Some of the issues are listed below.

Overview of Developing Countries

Issues of 3Rs in developing nations 1. 3R habit is achieved through stringent policy and regulation in Singapore, Japan, and Korea. This may not be happening in other Asian countries. 2. Waste is a livelihood for the urban poor communities in India, Bangladesh, and Indonesia. Hence stringent policy regulation implementation is a challenge. 3. Plastic recycling in India and Bangladesh reaches approximately 47% and 51%, respectively. Hence regulations for curtailing use of plastics are often not successful. Citizens feel that since plastics are being collected and recycled, there is no need to reduce consumption. 4. With the improvement in the standard of living and availability of other livelihood options, recycling of plastics may come down leading to accumulation of plastics. 5. Belief that recycling is not worth practicing will make recycling rate reduce. This is being observed in many rapidly developing countries like Malaysia and Thailand. Other factors that influence 3R practice • Impracticality of recycling due to the absence of waste separation • Lack of a clear policy and necessary enforcement • Nonsupportive local facilities • Issues of trans-boundary movement of waste • Absence of public participation • Low levels of awareness on the benefits of practicing the 3Rs • Consideration of informal recycling activities (scavengers and waste pickers) (Fig. 2.29)

Fig. 2.29 Ragpickers in Payatas landfill in the Philippines. (Source: P. Agamuthu, University of Malaya, Malaysia.)

47

Suani Teixeira Coelho et al.

48

Human drivers

Institutional drivers

3R

Economic drivers

Environment drivers

Fig. 2.30 Drivers of 3R. (Source: P. Agamuthu, University of Malaya, Malaysia.)

Drivers toward the success of 3Rs (Fig. 2.30) Current resource recycling strategies in Asia 1. 3R strategy has been so successful in Korea and Singapore that it has reduced MSW generation by approximately 22% and 10%, respectively. 2. Implementation of effective national waste management policies. 3. Other developing countries in Asia and the Pacific Islands reported unsuccessful story and instead rapid increase in waste generation is seen. 4. Commingled waste is another major problem. 2.2.3.1 Waste Management in India Waste is a by-product of living and is being generated at a faster rate than urbanization in India (Srivastava et al., 2014). Planning Commission Report (2014) reveals that 377 million people residing in urban area generate 62 million tons of MSW per annum currently and it is projected that by 2031 these urban centers will generate 165 million tons of waste annually. It is also projected that by 2050 it could reach 436 million tons. To accommodate the amount of waste generated by 2031, about 23.5  107 cubic meter of landfill space would be required and in terms of area, it would be 1175 ha of land per year. The area required from 2031 to 2050 would be 43,000 ha for landfills piled to a height of 20 m. These projections are based on 0.45 kg/capita/day waste generation (Planning Commission Report, 2014). The SW management has been hitherto given a low priority in most of the developing countries and hence funds allocated by the government agencies for managing the waste are inadequate, resulting in poor environmental conditions (health and hygiene). Furthermore, the level of tax and tax collection is poor coupled with the unwillingness of

Overview of Developing Countries

citizens to pay for services, thus economically constraining efficiency of this sector. Hence, it is important to rationalize the expenditure and management of the resources sustainably at the local body level for SW management to become effective in a country like India. The MSW is a state subject included in the 12th Schedule of the Constitution (74th Amendment) Act of 1992 and ULBs (urban local bodies) are mandated to provide MSWM in all urban areas. State laws governing the ULBs also stipulate MSWM as an obligatory function of the municipal governments. Despite 15 years of implementation of the Municipal Solid Waste Management Rules 2000, ULBs were not able to put in place good systems. Sustainable solid waste management (SSWM) is a people management issue and overemphasis of technological solutions to solving the MSW problem will only delay in realizing good results (Mani and Singh, 2016). The Solid Waste Management Rules 2016, which have been in force since April 2016, place greater emphasis on citizens’ participation and use of decentralized technologies and management practices.

Waste Management in Delhi

Delhi is the most densely populated and urbanized city of India. The annual growth rate of population during the last decade (1991–2001) was 3.85%, it almost double the national average. Currently the inhabitants of Delhi generate about 7000–10,000 ton/ day (TPD) of MSW, which is projected to rise to 17,000–25,000 ton/day by 2021 (Talyan et al., 2008). The MSW management has remained one of the most neglected areas of the municipal system in Delhi. About 70%–80% of the generated MSW is collected and the rest remains unattended on streets or in small open dumps. Only 23.2% of the collected MSW is treated through composting, WtE etc., and rest is disposed in uncontrolled open landfills at the outskirts of the city (MoHUA, 2017). The major issues of concern are as follows (Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata, 2012a,b): • Increased waste generation of about 2%–3% per annum (from a 2012 baseline). • Complex waste composition including 1%–2% hazardous materials. • Ineffective mechanisms to tackle this problem. • Lack of public participation. • More importantly, lack of proper policy framework in many countries. Most developing nations in the world still dispose of waste in landfill or dumpsites. Scavenging by informal sector • Waste is a source of livelihood for the low-income group • Additional side income for municipal workers • They retrieve valuable/recyclable materials • However, they face many health hazards • Also reported to start fire to collect metal-based wastes

49

Suani Teixeira Coelho et al.

50

Conclusions for Asian countries The current 3R practices in Asia and the Pacific Islands differ from one country to the other. • Successful stories are in economically developed nations such as Korea, Japan, and Singapore, while 3Rs are almost insignificant in other developing nations in Asia. • Positive drivers of 3R implementations include appropriate human attitude and the economic drivers, strengthened with suitable directive and legislation. • Negative factors on the other hand are the lack of human attentiveness, discouraging economic scenario, and absence of appropriate regulations pertaining to 3R practice. • Thus, improvement to amend these negative factors is very crucial in order to ensure that implementation of 3Rs in Asia and Pacific Island can be sustainable.

2.3 AFRICA: ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND SOCIAL OVERVIEW William H.L. Stafford Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Stellenbosch, South Africa; Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, South Africa

2.3.1 Economic Overview African countries have long faced challenges related to economic growth that is required to reduce poverty and GDP per capita is among the lowest in the world (Fig. 2.31).

Fig. 2.31 GDP per capita. (Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gdp_per_capita_ppp_ world_map.PNG.)

Overview of Developing Countries

For example, the average economic growth between 1990 and 2000 was only 2.1% per year. This is less than the population growth of 2.8% per year, and substantially less than the estimated 7% growth needed to reduce the proportion of Africans living in poverty by half by 2015. There has been substantial progress in terms of macroeconomic stabilization but institutional weaknesses and poor governance as well as the reliance on primary production and primary products have undermined the development of secondary tertiary economies and stifled overall economic development. For example, approximately 60% of all exports from Africa are agricultural sector but they account for only 8% of the GDP. Fig. 2.32 shows GDP growth in selected African countries. Historically, poor economic performance in the 1970s and 1980s led to the formulation of structural adjustment programs in many African countries that are composed of trade and payment liberalization, incentives for extraction of natural resources, privatization, and the removal of subsidies on social services such as education, health, and utilities. The poor governance characterized by a lack of transparency, accountability, and corruption increased poverty and led to human and financial capital being drained from Africa (Tutu, 1993). Since the slump in the 1990s, Africa’s economic growth has generally begun to improve with real rates of growth between 1% and 3%. However, performance in many countries was not encouraging. In addition, despite an increase in economic performance, per capita incomes have continued to remain stagnant that has resulted in increasing levels of poverty. However, it is encouraging that most African countries have achieved positive real growth rate for their economies since 2000. Africa achieved an average real GDP growth rate of 5.2% in 2004, 5.3% in 2005, and 5.7% in 2006. These improvements were generally underpinned by macroeconomic growth due to strong global demand for key African export commodities and are not a result of an increase in foreign direct investment that has been in decline since the 1970s. The foreign direct investment as a percentage of GDP for Northwestern east African countries has averaged around 1% per year, with only Central and Southern Africa obtaining greater foreign investment. This indicates a significant opportunity to improve the business environment and economic development in Africa through investment.

2.3.2 Environmental Overview As economies develop and industrialize they historically made increasing use of energy including use of fossil fuels. In addition, development has typically come at a cost of natural resources—as can be seen by the ecological deficit attributed of developed nations (see Fig. 2.33). Consequently, carbon emissions are typically reflective of industrial development status and this trend is observed for African countries. Only South Africa and Libya have per

51

52

Suani Teixeira Coelho et al.

Fig. 2.32 GDP growth in selected African countries. (Source: AfdB statistics; https://www.afdb.org/fil eadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Publications/African_Economic_Outlook_2018_-_EN.pdf.)

Overview of Developing Countries

Fig. 2.33 World consumption cartogram showing ecological deficit. (Source: http://pthbb.org/natural/ footprint/2003/cartogram.png.)

capita carbon dioxide emissions above the world average; moreover, in general, those countries with lower per capita GDP often tend to have lower per capita emissions. Aside from the GHG emissions from the use of fossil fuels to power economic development, significant GHG emissions are generated because of the clearing of forests and natural vegetation to convert land to agriculture and grazing. Additional sources of GHG emissions include tillage, savanna burning, use of fertilizer, and the disposal of organic wastes and sewage. For example, the highest methane emissions in Africa between 1990 and 1995 was attributed to Ethiopia which has one of the highest before headcount in the subregion and also notable methane emissions from the municipal dump in Addis Ababa that was estimated to be 9 Gg in 1998 (UNEP, 2015). Although Africa contributes relatively little to global GHG emissions the region is extremely vulnerable to the impact of projected climate change since the majority of the population is highly dependent on natural resources and agriculture and poverty significantly limits the ability to respond and adapt to climate change. Also of increasing concern is the degradation of land in South Africa that is estimated to be about 500 million ha since 1950. This land degradation includes the depletion of nutrients erosion and damage to soil structure because of tillage, overgrazing, increasing application of chemicals, the use of inappropriate equipment and technologies, and commercial monocultures coupled with inefficient irrigation systems.

53

Suani Teixeira Coelho et al.

54

Poverty and population pressure are the factors which increasingly affect the ability to manage land and natural resources in a sustainable manner. The challenge in developing countries such as Africa is how to increase economic growth without depleting natural resources or increasing pollution and environmental impacts. In many cases economic growth and development prioritizes increasing income per capita and fails to recognize the importance of natural resources on which livelihoods of many Africans depend. Weak institutional and legal frameworks or the lack of enforcement of environmental laws and legislation in many African countries often exemplifies this.

2.3.3 Social Overview Economic challenges in Africa are also underpinned in Africa by the high population growth rate and low life expectancy due to a high burden of infectious diseases, civil unrest, and poor health-care services, as shown in Figs. 2.34 and 2.35. From a social perspective, GDP and income per capita are not good measures of societal well-being. The HDI is a summary measure of average achievement in key dimensions of human development: a long and healthy life, knowledge, and a decent standard of living. The HDI is a composite statistic (composite index) of life expectancy, education, and per capita income indicators, which are used to rank countries into four tiers of human development. A country scores higher HDI when the lifespan is higher, the education level is higher, and the GDP per capita is higher. Most countries in Africa have a low HDI (see Fig. 2.36). Population growth, urbanization, a growing middle class, and changing consumption patterns drive SW generation in Africa. Changes in living standards and increases in

4+ 3.5–4 3–3.5 2.5–3 2–2.5 1.5–2 1–1.5 0.5–1 0–0.5 <0

Population growth rate by country (2013 est., CIA)

Fig. 2.34 Population growth (%). (Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid¼18159616.)

Overview of Developing Countries

+80 +77.5 +75 +72.5 +70 +67.5 +65 +60 +55 +50 +45 +40

Fig. 2.35 Life expectancy (years). (Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid¼18159616.)

55

Suani Teixeira Coelho et al.

56

World map indicating the Human Development Index (based on 2015 and 2016 data, published on March 21, 2017) 0.900–0.949

0.650–0.699

0.400–0.449

0.850–0.899

0.600–0.649

0.350–0.399

0.800–0.849

0.550–0.599

Data unavailable

0.750–0.799

0.500–0.549

0.700–0.749

0.450–0.499

Fig. 2.36 Human development index. (Sources: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Happen stance; http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/2016_human_development_report.pdf.)

disposable income result in increased consumption of goods and services and consequently an increase in waste generated (Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata, 2012a,b). The MSW is defined as waste collected by the municipality or disposed of at the municipal waste disposal site and includes residential, industrial, institutional, commercial, municipal, and construction and demolition wastes (Hoornweg et al., 2015). Data on SW is generally lacking and, if reported, it is mostly limited to subSaharan Africa (Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata, 2012a,b). It has been estimated that Africa contributes about 5% of all waste generated worldwide (Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata, 2012a,b). The total MSW generated in Africa, in 2012, is estimated to be 125 million ton a year of which 81 million ton is from sub-Saharan Africa (Scarlat et al., 2015). The waste generation rate in Africa is estimated to be 0.65 kg per person per day (varying between 0.09 and 3.0 kg per person per day) and is expected to increase to 0.85 kg per person

Overview of Developing Countries

per day in 2025. This translates into 169,119 ton of waste generated per day in 2012 and 441,840 ton per day in 2025. However, waste generation per capita varies considerably across countries, between cities, and within cities (Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata, 2012a,b). Waste generation is generally lower in rural areas since, on average, residents are usually poor, they purchase less products from stores and therefore generate less packaging waste and are more likely to reuse and recycle items (Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata, 2012a,b). Africa’s rapid growth rate of waste generation (30% between 2012 and 2025) is largely driven by urbanization and increased wealth and is not expected to stabilize before 2100 (Hoornweg et al., 2015). Urbanization in sub-Saharan Africa is expected to result in less dense cities, more akin to the United States than Japan due the availability of land. These types of cities are more likely to be associated with higher volumes of waste being generated (Hoornweg et al., 2015) (Fig. 2.37). Waste composition is influenced by factors such as culture, economic development, climate, and energy sources (Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata, 2012a,b). Furthermore, waste composition studies are often done as a snapshot in time and do not provide detail on seasonal variability in terms of volumes and composition. Generally, the organic waste percentages in urban waste streams of low- and middle-income countries are high ranging from 40% to 85%. Ash content is generally high in low-income countries where the majority of households are not connected to central electricity supply systems. Paper, plastic, glass, and metal fractions increase in the waste stream of middle- and high-income countries. The average waste composition in sub-Saharan African cities is 57% organic, 9% paper and cardboard, 13% plastics, 4% glass, 4% metal, and 13% others (Fig. 2.38) (Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata, 2012a,b; Scarlat et al., 2015) (Fig. 2.39). The projected changes in composition by country income between 2012 and 2025 are illustrated in Fig. 2.40. When comparing waste composition data between different cities and even between cities within one country, there is considerable variation, especially in the organic waste

Fig. 2.37 Urban and rural population of African Countries (1980–2050). (Source: ECS (2014).)

57

Suani Teixeira Coelho et al.

58

Sub-Saharan Africa 13% 4% 4%

13%

57%

9%

Organic

Paper

Plastic

Glass

Metal

Other

Fig. 2.38 Average MSW composition in Sub-Saharan countries. (Data from Hoornweg, D., Bhada-Tata, P., 2012. What a Waste: A Global Review of Solid Waste Management. Urban development Series, Knowledge Papers No. 15. World Bank, Washington, DC. © World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/ handle/10986/17388.)

Global 18%

4% 46%

5% 10%

17%

Organic

Paper

Plastic

Glass

Metal

Other

Fig. 2.39 Global MSW composition. (Data from Hoornweg, D., Bhada-Tata, P., 2012. What a Waste: A Global Review of Solid Waste Management. Urban development Series, Knowledge Papers No. 15. World Bank, Washington, DC. © World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/17388.)

Overview of Developing Countries

59

Current Metal Glass 3%

2025

Other 17%

3% Plastic 8% Paper 5%

Low income Organic 64%

Other 17%

Metal 3% Glass 3% Plastic 9% Paper 6%

75 MT*

Organic 62%

201 MT Other 15%

Other 15%

Metal 2% Glass 3%

Low middle income

Organic 59%

Plastic 12%

Metal 3% Glass 4% Organic 55%

Plastic 13%

Paper 9%

Paper 10%

369 MT

Metal 3%

956 MT Other 15%

Other 13% Upper middle income

Glass 5% Organic 54%

Plastic 11%

Metal 4% Glass 4%

Organic 50%

Plastic 12%

Paper 14%

Paper 15%

243 MT

426 MT High income

Other 18%

Others 17% Organic 28%

Metal 6% Glass 7%

Organic 28% Metal 6% Glass 7%

Plastic 11% Paper 31%

602 MT

Plastic 11%

Paper 30%

686 MT

Source: Current data vary by country *Total annual waste volume in millions of tonnes

Fig. 2.40 Solid waste composition by income and year. (Data from Hoornweg, D., Bhada-Tata, P., 2012. What a Waste: A Global Review of Solid Waste Management. Urban development Series, Knowledge Papers No. 15. World Bank, Washington, DC. © World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/ 10986/17388.)

Suani Teixeira Coelho et al.

60 Table 2.6 MSW Composition for Selected African Cities Composition (%) City

Paper/ Organic Cardboard

Plastic Glass Metal Other References

Abudja, Nigeria Accra, Ghana

56 65

11 6

10 4

4 3

5 3

n.a. 20

Cairo, Egypt Cape Town, South Africa City of Tshwane, South Africa Dar es Salaam, Tanzania Ibadan, Nigeria

55 39

18 20

8 18

3 11

4 7

12 5

Imam et al. (2008) Oteng-Ababio et al. (2013) UN-Habitat (2010) DEADP (2011)

54

12

10

7

2

16

Komen et al. (2016)

71

9

9

4

3

4

Bello et al. (2016)

70

8

5

2

2

15

Adeyi and Adeyemi (2017) Ayeleru et al. (2016)

Johannesburg, South Africa Kampala, Uganda Lagos, Nigeria

34

12

19

9

5.0

21

77 63

8 11

10 4

1 3

0 2

3 20

Moshi, Tanzania Nairobi, Kenya Windhoek, Namibia

65 65 47

9 6 15

9 12 11

3 2 14

2 1 4

12 15 9

Bello et al. (2016) Adeyi and Adeyemi (2017) Bello et al. (2016) UN-Habitat (2010) Gates Foundation (2012)

fraction (Table 2.6). Data presented in Table 2.6 are from different sources and are not all necessarily directly comparable for the following reasons: – sampling and sorting methods are not standardized across studies; – low numbers of samples which may not be representative of the entire city’s waste, but rather a snapshot in time; – not all studies covers more than one season and may therefore not representative of seasonal variation. According to Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata (2012a,b) the organic waste fraction tends to be highest in low-income countries and lowest in high-income countries. They also report that the organic fraction increase steadily as affluence increase, but at a slower rate than the nonorganic fraction. “Low-income countries have an organic fraction of 64% compared to 28% in high-income countries” (Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata, 2012a,b). The waste composition by country income level is presented in Fig. 2.41. The status of several African countries are summarized in Table 2.7 in terms of key economic, social, and environmental criteria. Chapter 6 presents detailed information on these countries’ waste policies, management practices, and opportunities for MSW to energy.

Overview of Developing Countries

61

Low middle-income countries

Low income countries

15%

17% 2% 3%

3% 3%

12%

8%

59%

64%

5%

9%

Organic

Paper

Plastic

Glass

Metal

Other

Organic

Upper middle-income countries

Paper

Plastic

Glass

Metal

Other

High income countries

13%

17%

3% 5%

28% 6%

11%

7%

54%

11% 14% 31%

Organic

Paper

Plastic

Glass

Metal

Other

Organic

Paper

Plastic

Glass

Metal

Other

Fig. 2.41 Waste composition by income. (Data from Hoornweg, D., Bhada-Tata, P., 2012. What a Waste: A Global Review of Solid Waste Management. Urban development Series, Knowledge Papers No. 15. World Bank, Washington, DC. © World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/17388.)

Table 2.7 Key Development Criteria for Selected African Countries Key Development Criteria for Selected African Countries

GDP GDP/ Population (millions)a Capitaa

South Africa Kenya Zimbabwe Uganda

Carbon Emissions per Capita (Tons CO2 Equivalents per Capita)b

HDIc

Urban Populationd

MSW per Capita (kg/ capita/ day)d

Total MSW (ton per day)d

54,957,000 761,926

13,403 9.49

0.666 26,720,493 2.00

53,425

45,533,000 164,340 13,503,000 29,795 37,102,000 91,212

3496 2277 2352

0.555 6,615,510 0.516 4,478,555 0.493 3,450,140

2000 2356 1179

1.34 1.82 0.89

0.30 0.53 0.34

a Gross domestic product (GDP), based on purchasing power parity. Data from “Report for Selected Country Groups and Subjects (PPP valuation of country GDP)”. IMF. Retrieved October 24, 2017. b Carbon emissions for 2013. Data from: Climate Analysis Indicators Tool (CAIT) Version 2.0. (Washington, DC: World Resources Institute, 2014). World Resources Institute. Retrieved 2017-06-12. c Human Development Index, HDI for 2015. Data from “Table 2: Trends in the Human Development Index, 1990–2015.” d What a waste. The World Bank. Daniel Hoornweg and Perinaz Bhada-Tata March 2012, No. 15.